RE: What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?
July 30, 2011 at 4:24 pm
(This post was last modified: July 30, 2011 at 4:27 pm by Emanuel.)
(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It is because those judgements etc are subjective. Science can indeed tell us every possible way we could make these judgements, and the potential outcomes of any judgement. (We do this all of the time).Well, even though science can help predict the outcome of our actions/judgments, it cannot make moral judgments (like whether euthanasia is right or wrong in a given context).
(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Science can in fact give you answers as to specific gods and the status of their existence.I agree that science can rule out specific gods, but it cannot rule out theism in general, for example.
(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Your life already has a purpose, at the very least, to carry life further through time.This isn't a good answer to why life in general exists or to why human life (again, in general) exists. One cannot say that life appeared to reproduce. Reproducing is just a way for life to perpetuate it's existence, but it isn't a purpose in and of itself.
Not that I'm not exactly asking "What is my purpose?", but "What is the purpose of life (in general)?".
(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Whatever else you want to add is okay, but understand that it is ultimately an assumption, because again, purpose and meaning are subjective.Perhaps you're referring to one's individual life? I'm referring to life as a whole. Why is it that exists? I do not think science can answer whether life exists with a purpose or whether it's an accident. And I do not think purpose and meaning are necessarily subjective. There are objective truths, and one of those truths is whether life is an accident or not, and I don't think it is possible to discover this truth trough science.
(July 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not being able to answer a subjective question to your level of satisfaction is not a shortcoming of science that requires you (or us)to insert a god.I don't insert a god, for example, just because science cannot answer a question of aesthetics.
(July 30, 2011 at 1:52 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The existance of morals can be explained perfectly well by science so I see no reason why aesthetics cant be either if anyone cares to do the legwork on it.The question was regarding moral judgments, not why morals exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
